Slashdot Log In
BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Mar 20, 2005 03:47 PM
from the whaddya-mean-ya-don't-trust-'em? dept.
from the whaddya-mean-ya-don't-trust-'em? dept.
distantbody writes "This BBC article by Bill Thompson is balanced and concise on the issues of DRM and 'Trusted Computing,' and offers some insights as to why such systems are the wrong path to follow for consumers and businesses alike. From the the article: 'We need to ensure that trusted computing remains under the control of the users and is not used to take away the freedoms we enjoy today ... the flexibility of copyright law is something that should be embraced and not taken away.'"
Related Stories
[+]
DRM Based on Trusted Computing Chips 484 comments
An anonymous reader writes "We've always know that Trusted Computing is really about DRM, but computer makers always denied it. Now that their Trusted Computing chips are standard on most new PCs, they've decided to come clean. According to Information Week, Lenovo has demonstrated a Thinkpad with built-in Microsoft and Adobe DRM that uses a Trusted Computing chip with a fingerprint sensor. Even worse: 'The system is also aimed at tracking who reads a document and when, because the chip can report back every access attempt. If you access the file, your fingerprint is recorded.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
rms on treacherous computing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:rms on treacherous computing (Score:4, Interesting)
The sad thing about Trusted Computing is that copyright enforcement is probably the one security problem it does not provide significant leverage for. Copyright is break once run anywhere.
I was at an SDMI conference, I could not find a single company interested in talking about the payment side of the problem.
I have little sympathy for either side in the debate. I have no time for the freeloaders who want to get something for nothing and no time for the freeloaders who want to use their economic power to get something for next to nothing and sell it expensive.
Parent
Freeloaders (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is that the portrayal of both sides is usually wrong. Most companies aren't big, evil, cigar-smoking Republicans sitting in dark rooms plotting economic takeovers to maintain their monopolies. They're just companies trying to protect their media content because of the explosion of piracy. And pirates aren't freedom fighters riding the wave of a big cultural movement. Most are just freeloaders looking to get stuff without having to pay for it (it's basic human nature).
So far, iTunes has been a big success, so apparently a lot of consumers have no problem with DRM and online legal music-downloading. So to be quite honest, I don't know why people still complain about an "obsolete business model" when record labels have already embraced services like Napster and iTunes. Legal online music is already here, which makes the argument for piracy appear even more self-serving.
Parent
Re:Freeloaders (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I still prefer to buy CDs. I like having the physical item in my hands, but ev
Generaliation (Score:3, Interesting)
Obeying laws, even absurd ones, is generally good, in order to avoid contempt for the law. Unfortunately, in the case of copyright, obeying the law means empowering the lobbyists that keep the law alive and strengthen it.
The best way is to avoid copyrighted works, and when they are not avoided, at least do not pay those who push for the continuation of the copyright regime.
Piracy is name-calling, and the re
Re:Freeloaders (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the Big labels' acceptance of the "new" business model like Napster (subscription) is that if they could, they'd rent you content and charge per use. A "pay-per-view" society is the content providers' wet dream. A funnel of money coming from your wallet and going to their bank account each time you turn on your TV, read a newspaper, or get on the internet.
Don't think that's what they want? DiVX was a piss-poor version of what they REALLY are after. You not having a physical copy of anything, and they controlling both ends of the pipe.
Can't do it? No, not yet they can't. But Trusted Computing and the legislation to back up their lockdown (DMCA anyone?), and they, not you, are in control. Each step is making it harder and harder for people to exert their rights over the rights of content owners, not the producers, the OWNERS. The biggest cry is from those who create NOTHING. They just OWN it. Who are the REAL freeloaders in this debate?
Explosion of piracy? You sound like a PR statement from the RIAA front desk. They are making billions. Still raking it in.. and by the way, increasing sales, in the face of "the explosion of piracy." How can they explain this? Well, they'd be making TRILLIONS if it weren't for those bastard college students. In other words, they don't. Don't look at how much we are making. Look at how much we claim to be losing. (That's another debate entirely.)
Every technological advancement has been met with the same brand of resistance and sometimes even from the same people (MPAA and VCR, anyone?) Every time the content providers adapt and innovate, they tap into yet another stream of revenue. Every time they stifle, legislate, sue, and whine, they disappear. It's called progress. Get on the train, or be left at the station. Sad thing is, the current content providers want to obliterate the train and the station.
They won't innovate anymore. Now their course it to control. I am not a freeloader, but I am also not going to give up any control. The things these people are trying to control are worthless pieces of entertainment that are not essential to your or my daily life. The sooner people realize this, the sooner the importance of this whole debate will return to the level it should. These providers aren't making anything we can't live without.
I for one would rather do without than to live under someone else's control. Nothing they have is worth losing your freedom over. Nothing.
Parent
I know why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever checked the prices they charge? Comparing prices for online music with the price of store bought CDs one gets the impression that the manufacture and distribution of CDs has a negative cost.
I would gladly pay for online music if the price was in the same order of magnitude as the cost the distributors have. But when they charge something like $1/song, and I must pay for all the downloading cost, something seems basically unfair.
The "business model" is still obsolete, it's done in the same way John D. Rockefeller used to do business. It's a cartel (or a "trust", as it was called in the late 19th century) that fixes prices and imposes artificial barriers to competition. Things like the broadcast bit and closed binary formats have the same use as the different train gauges the "robber barons" of the 19th century used to push independent railroads out of business.
No, the media cartel uses unethical business methods, and should be broken up. No new legislation is needed, any honest government could get rid of the ??AA using the same laws that were used to break up Standard Oil and AT&T. Meanwhile, what you call "piracy" I call "freedom fighting". Happy Boston Tea Party!
Parent
Not True (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not true, because efforts to impose "trusted computing" on all hardware by force of law. Even if an encryption scheme is broken, the media material could have embedded noise in it with a digital signature information and hardware could be mandated not to process any digital media or information unless it's prop
DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
If you had downloaded something, and it had DRM on it limiting the number of times you could view it or how long it could be viewed - it would just be a hassle, and would cause most people to either go looking or just wait for a unlocked version of it.
re-asking the question (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, so I've asked this before... I'll ask again... (refer to my previous post... [slashdot.org])
I had hoped for definitive answers to these questions, but if you'll re-read some of the responses to my post, while thoughtful, they were divergent and inconsistent among themselves. Again I am concerned what the "trusted computing" platform truly means... mostly because it appears to me it is mostly negative for the linux community.
A scenario played out last summer for me with... a local Mom and Pop grocery store kept EVERYTHING on their Windows XP PC, and one day it went toes-up. They were understandably distraught -- all of their business spreadsheets and wedding pictures (over 1G) were on the hard drive and they couldn't get to them. They were prepping the machine to be sent in to be re-imaged. I asked them if they knew that meant they were likely to lose their data. She was almost in tears. I went home, got my Knoppix CD, and with their permission, played... and, recovered ALL of their data and burned it redundantly to CD's.
So I ask, if theirs were a "trusted computing" machine, and I had tried to do the same thing for them with my Knoppix CD, would I have been able to? I'd hate to think this is one (of many) of the things we lose in this "better" world. Help!
(I honestly can't believe the computing world will stand for this, but maybe it's like boiling frogs in water... by the time we realize what's happening it's too late?)
Re:re-asking the question (Score:2)
Re:re-asking the question (Score:2)
1. if you throw a live frog into boiling water, the frog instanly knows the water is too hot and immedaiately jumps out unharmed.
2. throw a live frog into room-temperature water and heat it slowly to a boil, the frog nevers realizes the water is getting hoter until it's too late.
I've never heard from anyone who I'd considered trustworthy if either case of the above works.
Re:re-asking the question (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:re-asking the question (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:re-asking the question (Score:4, Insightful)
A Trusted computer can do anything a normal computer can do. A Trusted computer is a normal computer *plus* an extra handcuff mode. Outside handcuff mode it is a normal computer that can do anything you can do now. It's like a computer with speakers, when you turn the speakers off it's just as good as a normal speakerless computer.
It is such a threat becuase there is never any reason *not* to have a Trusted computer.
Not upgrading your computer will not help you. There is no need to outlaw normal computers because normal coupters aren't a threat to them, because normal computers will be increasingly useless. Trusted Computing it about new software that cannot be installed except in handcuff mode. New software that that can only be run in hancdcuff mode. It is about new media files and e-mail and WEBSITES that can only be seen in handcuff mode. And in a few years you may only be able to get an internet connection while in handcuff mode.
Yes all of the new stuff is crippled crap when you're in handcuff mode, but none of the new stuff will work at all outside handcuff mode, will not work on a normal computer. You're prefectly free to keep your old computer, you're perfectly free to manufacture and buy normal computers, but you'll get nothing but error messages from half the websites on the internet. You won't be able to read the e-mail your mother or your boss sent you. And your mother and your boss are going to blame you for not being able to read their mail, blame you for having a compatible computer, blame you for having an old obsolete computer.
The strategy is so insideous because there is no reason *not* to have a Trusted computer, and about making people increasingly suffer if they do not "upgrade" to a Trusted system.
-
Parent
Re:re-asking the question (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess as to the most likely scenario is that you will be able to boot knoppix. I just cannot imagine the amount of pressure the linux community brings to bear if this happens. The TC chip will however PROBABLY not permit knoppix to unlock the hard drive. So at this point you're kinda stuck. It is likely you'll get low-level access to the disk, but dumping encrypted data isn't of much use.
It is possible the TC chip will trust knoppix once the user enters their password, in which case your recovery would go just fine. It is also possible there is a back door and if you send the encrypted partition to the NSA they will unlock it for you, though I doubt they'll offer the service even if it is possible.
Parent
Re: re-asking the question (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, you can view 'trusted computing' as (potentially) a strong enabler for systems integrity checking, user authentication, and yes, DRM. This may be have both good, and evil uses.
It all comes down to whether it's optional, and who (ultimately) has the keys.
Right now, it's optional. There's still plenty h
Re:re-asking the question (Score:2, Informative)
First of all, if the TPM is even enabled, but the data that you want to recover is NOT protected by the TPM in anyway (either through the application or the OS), then you can recover the files.
If the application/OS that created or manipulated the files are using the TPM, then it MAY get a bit more tricky.
Here is the quick and dirty:
Re:re-asking the question (Score:3, Informative)
If the major reason for Trusted Computing is to protect Copyrighted Works, Then the final password will be in the hands of the copyright owner and not the end user.
Remember they are trying to take over the computer so they can "trust" it, becuase they belive that they can't "trust" the end user.
Re:re-asking the question (Score:3, Informative)
False.
I've read the technical specifications. The owner is forbidden to know or retrieve the Root Storage Key (RSK). The owner is forbibben to ever be able to see or retieve any 'non-migrable key'. And while it is not forbidden for the owner to retrieve migrable keys, it is impossible for an owner to ever see or retrieve even those migrable keys unless the original unmodified software was already written to make that request and the original author ch
Re:re-asking the question (Score:3, Insightful)
No, any password is useless if the operating system changes in any way unless the original unmodified software was explicitly written to pass along its key. The default state is that it will not be possible at all, and the realistic assumption is that the software will explicitly enable it to happen only to a certified patch of the original operating system.
So the answer is NO, the data cannot realisticly be retrieve
Trusted Computing: Both good and bad (Score:4, Interesting)
The bad part is what it means should trusted computing enter consumer electronics. With DRM it would be like having someone from the MPAA in my living room, and thats something I dont want to happen. While this technology sure has potential, it does need leash to keep it under control. I paid for the machine, so it should do what I want it to do.
Re:Trusted Computing: Both good and bad (Score:2)
If the governmentr needs that high of a security, they simply make the user sign out/ sign in the hard-drive from a secure vault.
I once lost a secret crypto document while in the army. I had signed it out of the commsec room and was resonsible for it. I had some rather seriuos talks with people from the Army Security Agency
Re:Trusted Computing: Both good and bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
To Be Fair... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:To Be Fair... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:To Be Fair... (Score:2)
Not 100% correct (Score:5, Informative)
It is an interesting twist of fate, though, that a significant fraction of the BBC Enterprise's income come from Black and White footage that the BBC Archives destroyed in the 1970s, but was later recovered by enthusiasts, media history fanatics, broadcasters with a sense of history, etc.
Had DRM existed in the 1960s, virtually everything prior to 1970 would have been lost forever. This would have included virtually all the Doctor Who stories, the BBC coverage of the moon landings, and many other recordings now regarded as historic and of extreme interest.
Fans of The Avengers would also have lost out, as many Catherine Gale episodes were recovered from a landfill site, as were the two known surviving episodes from the first season with Dr. Keel.
No, television today would be poorer, had they had DRM back then. The BBC would appear to have learned the hard way, but nonetheless have learned that copyright cuts both ways. It hurts EVERYONE and not just those supposedly targetted.
Orrin Hatch and American broadcasters have never really experienced the devastating losses that can result from a single bad decision. (Well, at least, not in broadcasting. The US has suffered many losses due to bad decisions in other areas of life.) Their refusal to recognise the lessons demonstrated so clearly by others is frightening. Faulty policies, through ignorance, can be excused. But there is no ignorance here. They know perfectly well what others have experienced, and either through arrogance or contempt, do not make any effort to avoid repeating those experiences here in the US.
Parent
Re:Not 100% correct (Score:2)
BBC (Score:5, Insightful)
I know they have their faults, but when they need to come through, they really come through, especially on matters of public interest.
I for one welcome our new BBC Overlords, in hopes that they will be a big ally in our struggle to further media distribution on the net.
Re:BBC (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in the UK everyone complains that the Beeb are biased - the conservatives, the liberals, the government. They must be doing something right.
Keep in mind (Score:5, Informative)
Bill Thompson is the Beebs geeky, slashdotty type technology editor. His articles are not representitive of BBC corporate policy, as the headline seems to imply.
+1 Informative (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything Europeans need to fight harder against this stuff because often those arguing against it are arrogant Americans whose argument is often "we do it in the US, therefore you must too". The irony often is that they have a harder time pushing it in the US than elsewhere.
I had a recent experience [locut.us] of this type of thing in teh debate over software patents in the EU.
Parent
But also remember (Score:2)
Plus note the BBC will offer most of its content for download for UK residents (those who fund it) from 2006 onwards. For a television network to offer downloads of its perviously run content (who has downloaded Enterprise or Buffy torrents because they missed the show despite such behaviour being illegal?) this is a serious step forward!
Re:But also remember (Score:2)
EFF and Berkeley (Score:4, Informative)
"trusted computing"? Framing issue (Score:5, Insightful)
By using the words "trusted computing" they are trying to vehicle a certain sub-text, just like when certain people use "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts" or "death tax" instead of "tax on estates of over 1 million dollars".
George Lakoff would have a lot to say about this...
Re:"trusted computing"? Framing issue (Score:2)
Re:"trusted computing"? Framing issue (Score:2)
My suggestion would be not to go too overboard because it's harder to be taken seriously.
Something like "limited computing" or "rent-a-computer" would be good.
One simple criterion for what is trustable (Score:5, Insightful)
If the device includes a private key known by the manufacturer and not known by the customer, the device is trustable by the manufacturer and not anymore by the customer.
There are no user-friendly feature which requires such a key, and there are no way to take your right away without such a key.
--
Go Debian!
law?? (Score:5, Insightful)
let's look at cars. speeding is prohibited. should cardesigners make it impossible to speed?
you're not allowed to kill. should bullet makers make bullets that don't kill?
then why....
For an accurate over view on the TPM ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Article buys industry lies (Score:5, Insightful)
That data can be images, movies, mp3s or executable code...
Parent
No, DRM is aobut controlling the user... (Score:2)
Is there any problem implementing any level of access control lists (hint: file systems), application integrity checks (hint: firewalls), protected system files (hint: user accounts) in software? No.
DRM is designed to resist tampering by you, the consumer. Is it created because today you have total power over your data, you have raw and complete access to them. Trusted computing is going to t
Re:Article buys industry lies (Score:5, Interesting)
What disturbs me is how easily people buy into the sound bites they're being fed every day. "Why, how can open source possibly be secure if everyone can see how it works?" "I think Trusted Computing sounds great! How else can we stop all the piracy?" And so forth. The larger issues for Americans are about Constitutionality, how far our government's authority should extend, how far foreign oligopolies can influence U.S. government and private-sector technological development
Parent
Re:Trusted System (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely... as a matter of fact I think it's more than most, it's close to ALL. Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and while some take to the challenge of stealing... most don't. So, while some in the past would make illegal copies and share "illegally" (downloading, etc.), the record companies' response by tightening the screws eventually I think will have an unintended effect. At some point the extra onus on the customer to "unlock", and jump through all of the drm hoops just to use something they already paid for and thought they were just going to sit down and enjoy will push them to their path of least resistance... e.g., not bother with buying cd's anymore, not bother with dvd's anymore, not bother with iTunes anymore...
Instead they'll just use the radio, go to the movie theater, whatever. What a wasted amount of time and effort to "trust" we the consumers.
Parent
Re:Trusted System (Score:2)
The customer is not the only concern these days (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason they require DRM for their online services is the spaghetti of contracts the entertainment industry has built up for themselves of the past several decades. For example if one studio released an album online unprotected, and the artists who created the content can demonstrate that piracy caused a loss in revinue, the content provider can be held legally liable for that loss.
As long as these studios took reasonable steps to prevent this piracy from occuring, their collective asses are covered, even if the DRM scheme used is cracked down the road.
Parent
Re:Just my opinion, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
The article makes some fair points about the changes in iTunes but doesn't mention the improvements. I can authorise more computers to play my Music Store tracks than I could before (it was only 3, not it's up to 5). I can stream my music over AirPort.
He does make a fair point though that
Re:The fundamental trouble with Trusted Computing (Score:2)
This of course has the side effect that everything you create yourself will have to be DRM'd, and moreover it will have to be encrypted with a key kept secret from you which has the consequence that all your data -- bought and created from scratch -- are belong to Microsoft (or whoever controls the keys).
It'll